This lack of support is posing a problem for the leadership of both parties who have never seen a war they don’t like and are trying to rally support for president Obama’s Syrian war. It looks like Obama is being urged to give a prime time speech to the nation to rally support for the war and you can expect more apocalyptic rhetoric.

And then there was this passage from Weiss’s report:

These are all signs of a groundswell in the wings of both parties, challenging the leadership. This is a “very dangerous place for the president to be,” Howard Fineman put it on MSNBC yesterday. Democrats are wondering “how the Democratic Party suddenly became the war party.” Good question.

No, it is not a good question. The Democrats have always been the war party, just like the Republicans. Has Fineman forgotten Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq, Libya? Many Democrats also initially supported Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, turning against them only when they went badly and became unpopular. Those later second thoughts hardly qualify them as being anti-war.

And Fineman is supposed to be a journalist. Sadly, he is not the only one suffering from this amnesia malady. It seems to be almost a requirement for the job.

Iraq how, Prof? By my timeline, I see King George I and King George II making the go-decisions on both Iraq Adventures? Not disagreeing on your thesis, just not sure I see where the Dems get the blame for that one? Or do you mean the voting-for-the-war in Congress?